impenetrable - impossible to get in or through : not able to be passed through or entered
It is always dark, Light is an illusion and not a thing!
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
How does this prove my claim, are you really this clueless?
2 cams a and b side by side in the dark, a can see, b can not, we turn on a flood light adding to the dark, b can now also see in the dark.
Well actually, I have just convincingly showed you are the one making unsupported accusations about God trolls.
If that were true, then you would have it peer reviewed, and accepted as mainstream scientific models, and of course if there was anything at all, any axiom, any truth, anything, in what you claim, you would not be in speudoscience with all your other threads, and you would not have been permanently banned elswhere.
Here we go again. Then how come everywhere you put your nonsensical inane delusional claims, they are rejected? How come you have not once had any thread that has not been moved to alternative, pseudoscience or the cesspool? Then how come you have suffered permanent bannings elswhere.
incorrect. an entity or such can known to exist or be there[anywhere, pick a spot, it's just an example]. you may not know the value of that thing. but it has a place. so zero(s) are used for such.
Um, no.
Define "dark".
Define "light"
Define "see".
The camera that "sees" in the "dark" simply uses light that is there but that is not visible to the human eye (but it converts it to human optical frequencies).
In other words the camera that sees in in the dark DOES NOT SEE IT AS DARK. - i.e to that camera it IS light.
When we turn on a floodlight it is BY DEFINITION no longer dark.
Ergo your "proof" is not only NOT a proof it's also based on flawed thinking.
This flawed "thinking" was explained to you - multiple times - on the forum that you were banned from for being "delusionally arrogant".
yes time is an entity that can be interacted within in a periodic format, a period of existence within the entity?
Correct. You can see them because some of the photons are reflected. If the beam is long enough and the smoke is dense enough, almost all the photons will be reflected and the remaining beam will be greatly attenuated. This is proof that you are not seeing the photons themselves continue through the smoke. Try it yourself if you like.
In diffuse reflection (google it) you do not see the same beam in the reflection.
Right. Now light it up with a second source and the shadow goes away - because dark is the absence of light. Again, try it yourself and you will see.
The opacity of a medium is the same no matter what other light is shining through the space. Again, test it if you like.
Reality disagrees with you.
See? More of the delusional ranting, and obviously false claims.
Like I said theorist ol Son, calm down, get over your frustration, take an aspro, and have a good lay down.
This thread has only one more level to go theorist.....and that won't be up.
The camera in the dark uses low levels of Em radiation to work get it right, that does not make light a thing, if I did that opp on you you would argue it was never dark at night, can you not see the point?
Sadly there appears to be the truth. I've been trying to assist, but it is obvious the horse as bolted in that regard.
why are you asking these questions. these are your own words that you have been using. i'm just trying to show how contradicting it is.
go back to post #482 and understand.
Well in actual fact taking dark to be an absence of EMR of all frequencies, even spacetime is never dark.....Not while the CMBR is at 2.7K .
I understand that my words are confusing because they do not mean what i want them to mean, dark allows light to pass through unaltered, but dark does not allow us to see through it until we add ''light'' and become submerged in light, we then can see matter through the dark, which is obviously now light.
Dark is constant 1
Light speed is constant 2
3 dimensional empty lit space is constant 3
matter is constant 4
Wrong again.
What WE call light is just EM radiation that our eyes are sensitive to.
Likewise a night vision camera is sensitive to a different set of frequencies - thus to the camera it is light.
Wrong again.
It would be dark, just not quite as dark as ordinary eyesight would consider it to be since I would have more photons (i.e. light) entering my eyes.
If there were NO light (in the human frequencies) at all then I wouldn't be able to see.
The fact I WOULD be able to see (albeit at reduced definition of details) would mean - a priori - that there was some light.
absence of sight boundaries I am referring to .
Meaningless (and incorrect) word salad.
No.
If there's light then, where there IS light, the dark has gone.
We don't "see through" the dark.
By definition if it's light then it's not dark.
Dark is not a thing.
Specious waffle.
No.
No.
No.
No.
I suppose you are one of these who thinks he sees with his eyes?
- Status